GPT-4o-mini vs Saba
Updated October 21, 2026. 4 benchmarks have a result for both. Coding is ranked on the Vibe Coding Index; every other board is shown as published.
Decision reading
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding.
GPT-4o-mini has the edge where the context window is larger, 128K against 33K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
- Shared results
- 4
- GPT-4o-mini only
- 23
- Saba only
- 0
- Like-for-like categories
- 3 of 9
Shared results can support a head-to-head reading. Results only one model has describe coverage, not superiority.
Which one for your work
Each card is decided by one number both models carry. Where only one has it, the card says so and makes no call.
Coding
Vibe Coding Index, six public coding benchmarks
No call
Neither has a coding score yet.
One side not measured
Intelligence
AA Intelligence Index
GPT-4o-mini
GPT-4o-mini leads, 6.7 against 6.5.
Same board, both measured
Reasoning
GPQA Diamond
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a GPQA Diamond result, 44.2%.
Directional only
Math
AIME
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a AIME result, 11.5%.
Directional only
Knowledge
MMLU Pro
No call
Only GPT-4o-mini has a MMLU Pro result, 62.7%.
Directional only
Long documents
Listed context window
GPT-4o-mini
GPT-4o-mini takes 128K tokens against 33K.
Listed by OpenRouter
Everyday cost
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o-mini
GPT-4o-mini $0.0004, Saba $0.0005 per turn.
List prices
At a glance
- Coding index
- GPT-4o-mini not benchmarked, Saba not benchmarked.
- Widest category
- Knowledge, 3.7 points apart on average over 1 shared benchmark.
- Widest single gap
- MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run): GPT-4o-mini 64.8% against Saba 61.1%, 3.7 points apart on a 0 to 100 scale.
- Output price
- Both cost $0.60 per million output tokens.
- Context window
- GPT-4o-mini takes 128K tokens, Saba 33K.
Benchmark by benchmark
First the score: boards each model leads, per category, where both have a result. Then every board, a category to a fold; bars are each result on a 0 to 100 scale, so compare the two in a row, not one row with another.
| Category | GPT-4o-mini | Bars | Saba | Ties |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Intelligence | 1 | 0 | ||
| Reasoning | 1 | 1 | ||
| Knowledge | 1 | 0 | ||
| All shared boards | 3 | 1 |
CodingDirectional onlySix of these boards feed the Vibe Coding Index3 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Coding Index | 11.4 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Vals AI) | 26.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LiveCodeBench (Artificial Analysis run) | 23.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 35 boards here | |||
IntelligenceLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AA Intelligence Index | 6.7 | 6.5 | GPT-4o-mini |
| Epoch Capabilities Index | 126.5 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
Agentic workNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 39 boards here | |||
ReasoningLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index11
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| GPQA Diamond | 44.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MMMU Pro (Vals AI) | 56.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| GPQA Diamond (Artificial Analysis run) | 42.6% | 42.4% | GPT-4o-mini |
| Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run) | 4.2% | 4.3% | Saba |
| ARC-AGI-2 | 0.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 16 boards here | |||
MathDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index6 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| AIME | 11.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MATH 500 (Vals AI) | 72.6% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MGSM (Vals AI) | 86.2% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| AA Math Index | 14.7 | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| AIME 2025 (Artificial Analysis run) | 14.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| GSM8K | 91.3% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 7 boards here | |||
KnowledgeLike-for-likePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index10
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| MMLU Pro | 62.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| CorpFin (Vals AI) | 45.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| TaxEval (Vals AI) | 60.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MortgageTax (Vals AI) | 54.5% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MedQA (Vals AI) | 72.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| MMLU Pro (Artificial Analysis run) | 64.8% | 61.1% | GPT-4o-mini |
| MMLU | 81.8% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 10 boards here | |||
Web designNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 9 boards here | |||
GeneralDirectional onlyPublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index4 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| IFBench | 31.0% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| DTBench | 54.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| LMCA | 10.4% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| PIQA | 88.7% | Not measured | Only GPT-4o-mini measured |
| Neither model has a result on the other 42 boards here | |||
Image generationNot comparablePublic boards, shown as published, kept out of the index0 boards, none shared
| Benchmark | GPT-4o-mini | Saba | Leader |
|---|---|---|---|
| Neither model has a result on 5 boards here | |||
What each workload costs
Three fixed token mixes at each model's listed price, so per-token rates become a bill.
Chat turn
1K input + 500 output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Repository review
50K input + 3K output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Agent loop
200K input + 10K output tokens
GPT-4o-mini costs less
Listed OpenRouter rates, without cache or batch discounts. A workload that does not fit a model's context window would need splitting.
Specification differences
The leading value in a row is marked; a row with a missing value names no leader. Our two rows are marked in red.
| Specification | OpenAI GPT-4o-mini | Mistral Saba |
|---|---|---|
| Maker | OpenAI | Mistral AI |
| Weights | No public weights listed | No public weights listed |
| Released | July 18, 2024 | February 17, 2025 |
| Context window | 128K | 33K |
| Input $/Mtok | $0.15 | $0.20 |
| Output $/Mtok | $0.60 | $0.60 |
| Coding index | Not benchmarked | Not benchmarked |
| Independent measurements behind it | 0 | 0 |
| Cost per solved task | Not computable | Not computable |
| Source | OpenRouter listing | OpenRouter listing |
Questions
Is GPT-4o-mini better than Saba for coding?
Neither model has a coding score yet, so the two cannot be ranked on coding. GPT-4o-mini has the edge where the context window is larger, 128K against 33K tokens, and where the benchmark that matters is Humanity's Last Exam (Artificial Analysis run), where it leads.
Which is cheaper, GPT-4o-mini or Saba?
GPT-4o-mini costs $0.15 per million input tokens and $0.60 per million output tokens; Saba costs $0.20 and $0.60. Cost per solved task is known for neither of them.
Which has the bigger context window, GPT-4o-mini or Saba?
GPT-4o-mini, with 128K tokens against 33K.
How many benchmarks is the GPT-4o-mini vs Saba comparison based on?
4 benchmarks have a result for both models as of October 21, 2026. GPT-4o-mini's coding index rests on 0 independent benchmarks and Saba's on 0. Where only one model has a result, the page says so instead of naming a winner.